1. Baruch Ivcher Bronstein, a Peruvian citizen and entrepreneur,
was chairman of the board of directors and majority shareholder
of
"Frecuencia Latina-Canal 2" television. He acquired
Peruvian nationality by virtue of a supreme decree, as required
under the existing law.
Under both the law in force at the time and the present law, aliens
are not permitted to own a radio or television channel in Peru.

2. In early 1997, Television Channel 2 devoted several programs
in its series "Contrapunto" to reports of alleged irregularities
within the
government, the most prominent being the programs that featured
on the case of Army Intelligence Service (Servicio de Inteligencia
del
Ejército - SIE) agents Mariela Barreto Riofano and Leonor
La Rosa Bustamante, the first of whom had been tortured and murdered.
The
coverage made public the private income tax declarations of Dr.
Vladimiro Montecinos Torres, a presidential advisor and member
of the
National Intelligence Service (Servicio de Inteligencia Nacional
- SIN); another important program revealed cases where the intelligence
services had tapped the phones of various Peruvian officials and
prominent figures.

3. After these news stories were aired, a number of congressmen
sought a congressional investigation, whereupon a number of events
occurred which Frecuencia Latina blamed on various agencies of
the State, such as irregular investigations of Frecuencia Latina
by officials
from the Office of the National Tax Administration Superintendent,
and military helicopter overflights of Mr Ivcher's businesses
at various hours
of the day. Frecuencia Latina continued to broadcast its news
stories, which included programs on the operations planned against
the media
to threaten journalists and the opponents of the Government, as
well as phone tapping of journalists, politicians and government
officials.

4. On May 23, 1997, the Armed Forces Joint Command released
Official Communique No. 002-97 CCFFAA, which mentions Baruch Ivcher
and underscores the fact that he was a naturalized Peruvian citizen.
The press communique accused Baruch Ivcher of using the media
to wage
a campaign to slander the Armed Forces by misrepresenting situations,
twisting facts and broadcasting "obviously malicious"
commentaries.
It added that slander of that type was unacceptable to the Armed
Forces, which refused to accept the "tendentious and malicious
campaign
waged, because it was an abuse of freedom of expression and an
attempt to alienate the public from the Armed Forces."

5. Then, on May 28, 1997, Supreme Decree No. 004-97-IN was
published, which approves the regulations governing Nationality
Act No.
26,574, Article 12 of which states that "naturalized citizenship
shall be canceled ... D. For acts that could be detrimental to
the national security
and the interests of the State." Article 27 states that "Acquired
Peruvian citizenship is lost ... "for the reasons stipulated
in Article 12 of the
Nationality Act." According to the petitioners, these Regulations
Governing the Nationality Law ... give the President of the Republic
the
authority to revoke an individual's nationality, in flagrant violation
of articles 2, paragraph 21, and 53 of the Peruvian Constitution.

II. PETITIONERS

6. On June 9, 1997, a petition was received at the Commission
in which Peruvian Congressman Javier Díez Canseco alleged
facts leading to
a reasonable presumption that the Peruvian State was setting the
stage to arbitrarily strip Peruvian entrepreneur Baruch Ivcher
Bronstein, the
majority shareholder of television channel "Frecuencia Latina",
of his citizenship, in violation of Article 20(3) of the American
Convention.

7. Later, on July 17, 1997, the dean of the Lima Bar Association,
Mr. Vladimir Paz de la Barra, filed a complaint on the victim's
behalf, alleging
that the Peruvian State had stripped Baruch Ivcher Bronstein of
his Peruvian citizenship, thereby violating Article 20(3) of the
American
Convention on Human Rights.

8. On August 26, 1997, Mr. Baruch Ivcher Bronstein, the victim,
attached a note addressed to the Commission wherein he requested
a hearing
with the Commission for himself and his attorney, thereby becoming
a party to the proceedings already underway with the Commission.

9. Mr. Ivcher, by letter dated February 27, 1998, addressed
to Ambassador Jorge Taiana, the Executive Secretary of the IACHR,
appointed
Mr. Ariel Dulitzky, co-Director of the Center for Justice and
International Law (CEJIL), as one of his representatives in this
case.

III. FACTS

10. In 1984, Mr. Baruch Ivcher Bronstein, an Israeli-born attorney,
became a naturalized Peruvian citizen, certified by nationality
document No.
004644, approved by Supreme Resolution No. 0649-RE of November
27, 1984, and signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

11. On July 10, 1997, PNP General Fernando Dianderas Ottone,
Director General of the National Police, held a press conference
to announce
the findings of report No. 003-97-IN-05010 of July 10, 1997, prepared
by the General Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization, to the
effect
that the file for citizenship document No. 004644, pertaining
to Baruch Ivcher B, approved by Supreme Resolution No. 0649-RE
of November
27, 1984, signed by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, in keeping
with Naturalization Act No. 9148, was not to be found at the General
Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization.

12. That press conference was followed by publication of Directorial
Resolution No. 117-97-IN-050100000000 dated July 11, 1997, in
the
Official Gazette El Peruano of July 13, 1997. In that administrative
resolution, the Government "revokes" Baruch Ivcher Bronstein's
Peruvian
citizenship document because of "substantive omissions that
invalidate it ipso jure, because the proper Peruvian authorities
were not shown
proof of his having first renounced his original nationality nor
did he show any document confirming that the authorities of his
country of origin
were advised that he was renouncing his citizenship of birth."
The resolution is signed by PNP Colonel Víctor Hugo Huamán
del Solar, Director
General of Immigration and Naturalization.

13. The preamble of the resolution emphasized the fact that
no copy or record was on file of the original naturalization procedure
that Baruch
Ivcher B. followed. It also stressed his failure to formally renounce
his citizenship of birth -Israeli; according to the directorial
resolution, the first
notarized evidence of his having renounced his citizenship of
birth was dated July 6, 1990, which meant that no such evidence
could have been
seen at the time he was granted Peruvian citizenship on December
7, 1984.

14. Baruch Ivcher B. then applied for a writ of Amparo against
Directorial Resolution No. 117-97-050100000000 (which revoked
his
citizenship document) with Lima Superior Court's Public Law Chamber.
The ruling on his petition seeking to have the resolution nullified,
dated
August 14, 1997, dismissed it as being unfounded. An appeal was
filed to challenge the ruling. The Provisional Public Law Chamber
heard the
petition and, in a ruling dated October 24, 1997, nullified all
proceedings because of a mistake made in the notification of the
action. With that
the case was returned to the lower courts. Once the case records
were returned to the lower court, the latter handed down a new
judgment,
dated November 12, 1997, which declared that no cause for action
had been shown. The petitioner appealed that ruling, again with
the
Provisional Public Law Chamber, which in a ruling of December
22, 1997, upheld the lower-court ruling. The petitioner challenged
this decision
before the Constitutional Court, which has not yet taken up the
case. It should be added that the Court in question is currently
functioning with
only four of its seven members.

15. In the same filing, the petitioner sought a restraining
order to suspend the effects of the directorial resolution that
stripped him of his
citizenship. That petition was denied on August 15, 1997. When
the ruling was appealed, the same Lima Superior Court Public Law
Chamber,
in a ruling dated September 11, 1997, nullified all the proceedings
owing to an error in the notification of the defendant. When the
case was
returned to the lower court, on October 16, 1997, the presiding
judge, Dr. Percy Escobar, again denied the request for a restraining
order. The
appeal on that ruling was decided by the Provisional Public Law
Chamber which, on December 11, 1997, upheld the lower court's
ruling,
declaring that the provisional measure requested was out of order.

16. At the same time, on July 11, 1997, Mr. Mendel Winter Zuzunaga
and Mr. Samuel Winter Zuzunaga, minority shareholders in Frecuencia
Latina, filed their own petition of amparo seeking nullification
of Mr. Baruch Ivcher B.'s purchase of shares in that television
channel; they
argued that because Mr. Ivcher was an Israeli citizen, he should
have been barred from purchasing those shares and that the purchases
should
be declared null and void. In the same application, they petitioned
the court for a provisional measure to allow them to take control
of the
channel's administration. In the lower court, the Judge of the
First Public Law Chamber acceded to their request on August 1,
1997; his ruling
was upheld on September 12, 1997, by Lima Superior Court's Provisional
Public Law Chamber; the result was that Mr. Baruch Ivcher B.'s
appointment as Director of the Latin American Radio Broadcasting
Corporation and as Chairman of the Board of Directors of that
body was
revoked until the question of his Peruvian nationality was decided
by the competent authority.

17. On September 19, 1997, the brothers Winter Zuzunaga, minority
shareholders in the television channel, took over its control
and
immediately barred from the premises a number of journalists and
officials identified as being in Ivcher's camp. That list was
formalized and
certified by Notary Public Manuel Noya de la Piedra.

18. Mr. Baruch Ivcher filed for a remedy of cassation against
the resolution that handed over control of the channel to the
minority shareholders.
That application was denied, thus leaving control of the channel
in the hands of the minority shareholders.

19. For his part, the victim filed another remedy of amparo
challenging articles 12 and 13 of the Regulations governing Nationality
Act No.
26.574. The lower court dismissed his application on the grounds
that it was unfounded. The case was then taken to the Provisional
Public
Law Chamber which, on November 12, 1997, nullified the proceedings
because of an error in the notification of the defendant, and
sent the
case back to the lower court.

21. On October 23, 1997, the Inter-American Press Association
passed a resolution at its 53rd General Assembly wherein it pointed
out that
with the silencing of Television Channel 2 for having reported
government violations of human rights, freedom of press in Peru
had been
seriously compromised; it therefore resolved to urge repeal of
the resolution that stripped Baruch Ivcher of his Peruvian citizenship,
thereby
permitting him, as the channel's majority shareholder, to remain
in control of the channel.

IV. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

22. On June 9, 1997, the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights (hereinafter the "Commission") received a petition
filed against the
Republic of Peru (hereinafter the "Peruvian State" or
the "State") by Congressman Javier Díez Canseco.
There Congressman Díez Canseco
alleged that judging from the events occurring in Peru at that
time, the victim could well be on the verge of being stripped
of his Peruvian
citizenship.

23. Later, on July 16, 1997, the Commission received a second
petition filed against the Peruvian State, this time by the Dean
of the Lima Bar
Association, Dr. Vladimir Paz de la Barra, wherein he charged
that the Peruvian State had revoked the Peruvian citizenship given
to Baruch
Ivcher Bronstein. The petition was based on Article 53 of the
Constitution, which protects citizenship; Article 6 of Law No.
26.574, which
stipulates that naturalization shall be either approved or canceled,
as appropriate, by virtue of a supreme resolution, the argument
being that
the directorial resolution was unconstitutional. This petitioner
added that the violation of the Peruvian legal system was also
a serious violation
of Article 20(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

24. On July 18, 1997, the Commission instituted proceedings
by sending a communication to the Peruvian State requesting information
within
60 days and assigning the case number 11.762.

Provisional measures

25. On July 28, 1997, the Commission received a note from the
first petitioner and Peruvian Congressman Javier Díez Canseco,
dated July
14, 1997, alleging that events had transpired at that time which
had resulted in a violation of Mr. Baruch Ivcher B.'s right to
citizenship. The note
added information relating to the underlying motives and preambular
paragraphs of the resolution that stripped the victim of his nationality.
The
note stated that at a press conference, the Director General of
the National Police purportedly explained that "no record
has been found at any
office of the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization to confirm
the existence of the file that led to Mr. Ivcher's Nationality
Document No.
004644", which was why the Director of the Service issued
the resolution in question.

26. In the same application, the petitioner asked the Commission
to "agree to the appropriate provisional measures",
to avoid irreparable
harm.

27. On July 30, 1997, the Commission sent a letter to the Peruvian
State requesting that, pursuant to Article 29 of the Commission's
Regulations, effective provisional measures be adopted to restore
Peruvian citizenship to Baruch Ivcher Bronstein, since the latter
could be
irreparably harmed if stripped of it.

28. On August 26, 1997, the Commission received a letter dated
August 26, 1997, wherein Mr. Baruch Ivcher Bronstein requested
a hearing
with the Commission to denounce the Peruvian State's violation
of his rights.

29. On September 2, 1997, the Peruvian State requested that
the Commission extend the deadline for providing the Commission
with
information. The Commission responded by granting a 15-day extension.

30. On September 12, 1997, the Permanent Representative of
Peru provided the Commission with a report on the case in question,
prepared
by the National Human Rights Council. There the Commission was
asked to declare the petition inadmissible by virtue of articles
46 and 47 of
the American Convention on Human Rights and the corresponding
articles of the Commission's Regulations, since at the time a
number of
proceedings were in progress in domestic courts; were the Commission
to take up the case, it would be taking over cases now pending
in the
Peruvian courts, as the remedies under domestic law had not been
exhausted.

31. On September 18, 1997, the Permanent Representative of
Peru sent the Commission a report prepared by the Council for
the Defense of
Human Rights, Memorandum No. 1613-97-JUS-/CNDH-SE, where the State
addresses the matter of the provisional measures requested by
the Commission via note of July 30, 1997; in that note the State
had been asked to adopt "effective provisional measures to
restore Peruvian
citizenship to Mr. Baruch Ivcher B."

32. That memorandum began by pointing out that the petition
was inadmissible on the grounds that the remedies under domestic
law had not
been exhausted. Its response to the Commission's request for provisional
measures was that the principles at issue in regard to the
provisional measures were the same as those at issue in the merits
in the case, a case being heard by the domestic courts at that
time. It
therefore asked that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,
"based on articles 46(1)(a) and 47(a) of the Convention,
articles 35(a)
and 37(1) of its Regulations, and articles 19(a) and 23(1) of
its Statute, declare the petition inadmissible. The Commission
cannot take up a
proceeding for provisional or precautionary measures since no
organ other than the Peruvian judiciary may rule on the merits
of a case, or its
ancillary issues or provisional measures, as that would constitute
interference in the independence of the judicial organs of the
Peruvian State
and flagrant disregard for the maxim of the law that holds that
the finding on the merits of a case will determine the outcome
of ancillary issues."

33. The Peruvian response went on to say that under Article
139 of the Constitution now in force, no authority could take
over cases pending in
the courts, or interfere in the courts' exercise of their functions.
Therefore, any pronouncement on the disputed issue or precautionary
measures
would constitute interference in the autonomy of the judicial
organs of the State.

34. On September 19, 1997, the Commission received additional
information from Congressman Javier Díez Canseco where
he reported
developments in the domestic proceedings surrounding this case.

Hearing

35. On October 9, 1997, at the Commission's 97th session, a
hearing was held with representatives of the Peruvian Government
and of the
petitioners, Mr. Enrique Elías, attorney for the victim,
and the Dean of the Lima Bar Association, Vladimir Paz de la Barra.
The representatives
for the two sides gave their arguments.

36. The petitioners asked the Commission to take immediate
action, arguing that this was one of the exceptions provided for
in Article 46 of
the Convention. They pointed out that the court of last resort
in the instant case was having serious operating difficulties,
and was either
prohibited from or unable to follow the proper legal procedure,
which was to serve as court of last instance and review this case.

37. Secondly, the petitioners argued that at the lower-court
level something very serious had transpired, since for a variety
of reasons the judge
assigned to the court did not hear the case; instead, an alternate
judge was named. On 15 different occasions the alternate judge
had been
cited for such egregious errors and transgressions as loss of
case files, unlawful delays in proceedings, fraudulent notifications
and others. As
Secretary of the Court, he was one who would now decide the case
at the lower-court level, which adversely affected due process.

38. This, in the petitioners' judgment, did not ensure the
necessary guarantees of an independent, impartial and fair court.
The petitioners also
pointed out that the three judges presiding over the case in the
court of second instance had thus far managed to drag the proceedings
out for
four months. A decision was handed down nullifying all proceedings
in the case on the grounds that the Director of Immigration supposedly
was not properly notified, which was not true because he was served
on time and in the proper manner. The petitioners are seeking
to have the
case admitted on the grounds that guarantees of due process of
law do not exist in Peru; they are also asking the Commission
to seek
immediate precautionary measures to prevent irreparable harm from
being done to the victim.

39. For its part, the Government stressed that the facts in
the instant case are being litigated in the domestic courts, so
that the Commission
should declare the petition inadmissible on the grounds of a failure
to exhaust the remedies under domestic law.

40. On October 9, 1997, the victim, Baruch Ivcher Bronstein,
attached a brief to the petition he filed with the Commission
against the Peruvian
State, alleging that he had been stripped of his Peruvian nationality
in violation of Article 20(3) of the American Convention; that
his right to
retain and exercise the privileges of the right of ownership,
protected under Article 21(1) of the Convention, was violated
when his loss of
citizenship caused him to lose control over a sizeable share of
his assets; that the right to freedom of the press and freedom
of expression
established in Article 13 of the Convention was violated when
he was forced off the board of directors of "Frecuencia Latina
Canal 2"
television, and that his right of self-defense, to due process
of law and to judicial protection, established in articles 8 and
25 of the Convention,
were violated when he was arbitrarily stripped of his nationality
via an administrative decision that resulted from an administrative
action of
which he was never notified and of which he learned only when
the decree stripping him of his nationality was published. A series
of
irregularities in this judicial process and thereafter denied
him his right of self-defense, leaving him with no means to defend
himself.

41. The pertinent parts of the victim's petition and other
documents added thereafter were forwarded to the Peruvian Government
as
"additional information" on November 25, 1997; the Government
was given 15 days in which to comment.

42. As for the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioner
stated that in the instant case, "for applications seeking
writs of habeas corpus
and amparo, the Peruvian Judiciary has no independent and honest
judges who ensure that amparo is an effective means to defend
the
constitutional rights invoked."

43. On October 17, 1997, the Commission received a brief alleging
that at the present time the State's duties and obligations cannot
be
performed because of a problem of unrestrainability created by
the amendment introduced in the Code of Civil Procedure with Laws
Nos.
26.599 and 26.756. The constitutionality of both these laws was
being challenged in the Constitutional Court. This, in the victim's
judgment,
exacerbates his situation; the harm he is suffering is irreparable
because any action seeking to redress the damage caused is ineffective.
Hence, urgent precautionary measures are needed.

44. In another brief filed that same date, the victim enclosed
a list of background information on Dr. Percy Escobar, judge on
Lima's
Provisional Public Law Bench and who, in the petitioner's judgment,
"was appointed to the bench for political reasons, despite
the fact that he
did not have the ethical and professional qualifications for the
office"; Dr. Percy was the one who heard the application
that Mr. Ivcher filed in
the lower courts seeking a writ of amparo. Enclosed was a copy
of Memorandum No. 922-97-UA/csjl, to which was attached a full
record of the
disciplinary measures ordered against Judge Percy Escobar.

45. On October 20, 1997, Mr. Ivcher presented a memorandum
to the Commission, to which he attached a notarized document dated
December 6, 1984, which was issued on July 6, 1990, in which Baruch
Ivcher's renunciation of his Israeli nationality is made official,
as well as
an explanation provided by the Notary Public, Dr. Máximo
L. Vargas, who twice provided testimony about the above mentioned
public
document.

46. Later, in filings dated November 19 and December 3, 1997,
and January 6, January 29 and February 11, 1998, the victim provided
additional information and stood by the arguments made previously
in connection with the admissibility of the case.

47. For its part, in notes dated December 2, 1997, January
15, 1998, January 16, 1998 and January 27, 1998, the Peruvian
State provided
additional information to reinforce its argument that the case
was inadmissible because not all remedies before the Peruvian
courts had been
exhausted.

48. On February 26, 1998, during the Commission's 98th period
of sessions, the Commission held a second admissibility hearing
on this
case. At this hearing, information was provided that a final internal
remedy was pending before the Peruvian courts, presented on January
16,
1998 by Baruch Ivcher before the Constitutional Court, against
the judgment of the court of appeals which had denied the writ
of amparo. Also,
it was added that pursuant to its governing law, the Constitutional
Court has a time period of 20 days within which to decide a writ
of amparo
presented to it.1

V. ADMISSIBILITY

49. The three petitions satisfy the formal requirements established
in Article 46 of the Convention for admissibility. The petitions
were filed
within the time frame stipulated in Article 46(b) of the Convention
and Article 38 of the Commission's Regulations, and were filed
with the
Commission within the 6-month period stipulated in the American
Convention. It is worthwhile noting that the victim was the last
to file a
petition, and he is now regarded as the principal petitioner.

50. In keeping with Article 46(c) of the Convention and Article
39 of the Commission's Regulations, in the Commission's knowledge
the subject
of this petition is not pending with any other international body
for settlement.

51. The Peruvian State raised a preliminary objection arguing
the petitioner's failure to exhaust the remedies under domestic
law, pointing out
that the facts in the instant case were being litigated in several
actions now before the domestic courts, which meant that the remedies
under
domestic law had not been exhausted.

52. The petitioner argued that in the instant case, the exception
allowed in Convention Article 46(2) to the rules requiring exhaustion
of the
remedies under domestic law applied because in Peru there was
no effective remedy to protect the violated rights or due process
of law to
ensure the independence and impartiality that a court must have
when hearing a case, which is a violation of Articles 25 and 8
of the
Convention. It was also alleged that there had been an unwarranted
delay in ruling on the remedies invoked, especially the ruling
by the
Provisional Public Law Chamber in case No. 246-97, dated September
11, 1997; that case was the appeal challenging the earlier decision
that denied the precautionary measure sought in the action seeking
a writ of amparo against the decision that stripped Mr. Baruch
Ivcher B. of
his nationality. That September 11 ruling vacated all proceedings
conducted theretofore.

53. Thus far, seven months after the directorial resolution
stripping Mr. Baruch Ivcher of his nationality was issued, the
victim has not yet
obtained a final judgment settling his nationality status once
and for all. On three different occasions, the appellate court
has nullified all
proceedings in his case and returned the case to the lower court,
thus delaying and complicating his case. At the same time, the
very same
court has already handed down definitive rulings on the Winter
brothers' cases, in their favor, thus taking away the victim's
control of the
administration of the television channel through application of
Directorial Resolution No. 11-97-IN-050100000000. In other words,
both the
lower court and the appellate court have treated Baruch Ivcher
Bronstein as a de facto alien and declared him to be an alien.

54. Throughout the proceedings, especially at the hearing held
at the 97th session, the State failed to demonstrate that the
Peruvian legal
system had simple, efficient and effective remedies for the victim's
situation.

55. Mr. Baruch Ivcher Bronstein's present situation is extremely
disturbing, as he appears to have suffered virtually irreparable
damage. While
the Government maintains that he is an undocumented Peruvian,
the courts of first and second instance have handed over control
of
Frecuencia Latina Canal 2 television to minority shareholders,
even though Mr. Ivcher is its majority shareholder and was its
chairman. As
these court rulings were premised on the fact that Mr. Ivcher
was not a Peruvian citizen and because, under the present law,
no alien may own
a television channel, the channel's administration is no longer
in Mr. Ivcher's hands.

56. As a consequence of the foregoing, even if Mr. Ivcher were
to win the cases brought in the domestic courts, the damages he
has already
sustained are of enormous magnitude and would be very difficult
to redress in full. These damages are aggravated day by day and
require a
simple and effective remedy. For that reason, the Commission,
without prejudging the facts but applying the maxim that requires
it to opt for the
interpretation of the law that best protects human rights, agreed
to seek precautionary measures for Mr. Ivcher. These measures
were
requested by letter dated July 30, 1997.

57. In that note the Government was asked to take the precautionary
measures needed to prevent the victim from being stripped of his
nationality, so that he might be regarded as a citizen in the
legal action he has brought, thereby avoiding irreparable harm
to him.

58. The Peruvian State replied to the Commission by stating
that the case was being heard by the courts and that under the
Constitution no
authority may seize itself of matters already being heard by the
courts. Peruvian domestic law provided adequate tools to protect
those rights,
such as amparo, and that in fact the victim had requested a similar
precautionary measure, which was being decided by the courts.

59. The Government's refusal and the judicial system's delay
in ruling on this case, place the petitioner in a defenseless
situation and have thus
far been ineffective in avoiding harm to the victim, although
eventually everything might well be settled and any wrong done
by the regular courts
might eventually be fully righted. That could happen with the
ruling to be handed down by the Constitutional Court.

60. The Peruvian State has not taken any precautionary measure
to maintain the victim's status quo until such time as the merits
of the case
are settled in the national courts. Peru's lower courts have refused
Mr. Ivcher's application seeking precautionary measures; when
that ruling
was appealed, the Superior Court declared all proceedings conducted
thus far to be null and void which, the petitioner argues, has
delayed the
proceedings by approximately four months. The conclusion drawn
from these facts is that the domestic remedies have been neither
swift nor
effective in preventing harm of such severity. This harm becomes
greater with the passage of time, given the nature of the rights
involved, since
the victim has been severed from his employment as chairman of
Frecuencia Latina Channel 2 television. The fact that harm has
materialized
in the interim, before the domestic courts handed down a final
ruling on the applications filed seeking writs of amparo, demonstrates
how slow
and ineffective the remedies in this case have been, and gives
the Commission grounds to declare the case admissible.

61. As for the passive legitimation, because Peru is a State
party to the American Convention, having ratified it on July 28,
1978, the
Commission is competent to take up the present case.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

62. The Commission concludes that the petition satisfies the
admissibility requirements established in Article 46 of the American
Convention.

63. As for the Peruvian State's objections asserting that the
remedies under domestic law have not been exhausted, no credible
evidence has
been shown during the proceedings, especially during the hearings
before the Commission in October 1997 and February 1998, to
demonstrate that effective domestic remedies do exist. Therefore,
the Commission considers that in the instant case, the exceptions
established in article 46(2) (a), and (c) of the American Convention
on Human Rights apply; hence, the remedies under domestic law
need not
be exhausted for the Commission to take up the petition.

64. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Commission might eventually
declare the petition inadmissible if, when examining the merits
of the
case, it finds some change in circumstances, which includes the
possibility of full reparations to the victim.

65. Hence, the Commission declares the instant case admissible
although it will re-visit the issues in greater depth when examining
the merits
of the case.

66. To publish the present admissibility report in its Annual
Report to the OAS General Assembly.

Endnotes:

1. Law No. 26.435. Organic Law of the Constitutional Court.
Article 43 provides that "The Court, has a maximum time period
of ...20 days, for dealing with cases concerning the denial of
a writ of amparo...".